The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 06-27-2011, 01:47 PM
IloveCP's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Palm Springs, United States
Posts: 4,908
I also ponder if Edward would still marry Wallis but still was king.I think George VI would still be king since they did'nt have children.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:54 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,654
This looks like a good spot to put this.

Any Australians who read this, there's a doco on SBS at 8.30 tonight called "Edward and George: Two Brothers, One Throne".

Synopsis: "Beginning with the constitutional crisis caused by King Edward VIII's abdication in 1936, this program looks back to the childhood of brothers David (Edward VIII) and Bertie (George VI), as they were called back then. Growing up in the quiet of the countryside, strong woman have had their influence on them from early on: from great-grandmother Queen Victoria down to malicious nannies. Archive material, including extracts from George's key speeches, take you deep into the family story that not only shook the British monarchy but made headlines the world over."

Could be interesting.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-01-2013, 06:23 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 264
An interesting scenario would have been if the Duke of Windsor had had a son who had gone on to marry his first cousin who was to become Queen Elizabeth. If they had a child together, although they would be the rightful future monarch, they would be a decendent of the Duke of Windsor and therefore illegible to be monarch. Unlikely scenario, but how would this have played out?
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-01-2013, 06:30 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
It wouldn't have reached that point - for a number of reasons - but largely because of the age gap - The Queen would have been at least 11 years older than any possible child of the DoW and in her day marriage in early to mid-20s was expected.

Had the scenario actually arisen the law would have been changed to allow for the child's rights through Elizabeth to trump the lack of rights from Edward.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-01-2013, 06:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by IloveCP View Post
I also ponder if Edward would still marry Wallis but still was king.I think George VI would still be king since they did'nt have children.
Not quite - Edward died in 1972 and George VI in 1952 so Elizabeth would have just celebrated her ruby jubilee rather than her diamond one.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-01-2013, 08:43 AM
teia's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: venice regio, Italy
Posts: 29
just a reminder to some of the threads: artificial insemination is in use since 1700 and the early succesful ones in humans are from 1884
__________________
Car la vie est un bien perdue quand on n'a pas vécu comme on l'aurait voulu Eminescu
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-01-2013, 09:09 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by teia View Post
just a reminder to some of the threads: artificial insemination is in use since 1700 and the early succesful ones in humans are from 1884
Have I missed something?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-01-2013, 10:57 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Had the scenario actually arisen the law would have been changed to allow for the child's rights through Elizabeth to trump the lack of rights from Edward.
Why would any change have been required at all? Elizabeth would still have been heiress presumptive as the elder daughter of GVI. Marriage to a son of the DoW, with no succession rights of his own, would not have prevented Elizabeths children from having succession rights of their own through her. As descendents of the DoW they would have no succession rights but as descendents of GVI and QEII they would have.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-01-2013, 11:44 AM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464

That is correct. It does not take two parents with succession rights to make a baby with succession rights.

If it did, the only legitimate heir apparent in the world (or in Europe, at least) would be the Prince of Wales, since the Duke of Edinburgh is also in the line of succession.

In fact, being descended from a person specifically barred from succession does not nullify one's right to the crown if one is in the line through someone else. I believe the King of Spain's maternal ancestor, the Count of Caserta, was barred from succession to the Spanish throne due to fighting with the Carlists.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-01-2013, 06:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
It would be necessary to ensure no possibility of a challenge.

The DoW's descendents were specifically barred so making it clear that any descendent from a line that wasn't barred would make the situation clear.

How other countries deal with matters is not the same way that the UK would do things in that situation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-01-2013, 07:55 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
Illegitimate children and their descendants are also specifically and permanently barred from succession. If a monarch marries his or her predecessor's illegitimate child, are the couple's children in the line or barred from succession? If a person who is in the line marries a person descended from an illegitimate child of a monarch, are their children in the line?

I wonder if this sort of thing has ever happened in the UK. The fact that Prince William asked for permission to marry despite being descended from several princess who married into foreign families appears to answer the question. Descendants of such princesses do not need to ask for permission, but William did because he was also a male-line descendant of a British monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-01-2013, 08:23 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
Illegitimate children and their descendants are also specifically and permanently barred from succession. If a monarch marries his or her predecessor's illegitimate child, are the couple's children in the line or barred from succession? If a person who is in the line marries a person descended from an illegitimate child of a monarch, are their children in the line?
If a monarch marries his or her predecessor's illegitimate children, I would call into question the closeness of the relationship of the two before worrying about the succession...

But, okay, let's role with this. Say Queen Victoria married one of her FitzClarence cousins (or a child of a Clarence cousin) instead of Albert. The FitzClarence's were the illegitimate children of William IV, and thus barred from the line of succession, thus making Victoria her uncle's heir. Would the children of Victoria and Fitz have been eligible to succeed?

The short, yes. They wouldn't have been in the line of succession through their father, but they would have through their mother. It's the same as if Victoria had married any other individual not in the line of succession; her children gain their place through her rights, not their father's lack o rights.

Now, say there had been a child of Edward VIII who for whatever reason (illegitimacy, being born to Wallis, etc) was barred from the line of succession. If that child then married Elizabeth II then their children would have had succession rights through their mother, just not their father. The whole "no descendants of Edward VIII an Wallis can inherit" thing refers to the idea that they cannot inherit through their relation to Edward.

Quote:
I wonder if this sort of thing has ever happened in the UK. The fact that Prince William asked for permission to marry despite being descended from several princess who married into foreign families appears to answer the question. Descendants of such princesses do not need to ask for permission, but William did because he was also a male-line descendant of a British monarch.
William asked because while he was descended from individuals who had married into foreign royal families, his claim to the throne comes first from his father (and grandmother), whose claim comes from other individuals who do not descend from people who are not married into foreign royalty (they may have married foreign royals, but they didn't marry into that family; the DoE became a British royal, while Elizabeth II did not become a Greek one).

This goes back to the same kind of argument I made with the illegitimate children. If William's place in the succession was owing to his relationship to the (originally) Greek DoE, then he wouldn't have had to ask for permission to marry because his descent was through foreign royals. But because his place in the succession is owing to his relationship to the British Queen, his descent is through British royals, so he has to ask for permission.

It'd be the same with the Phillips, who are not male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Their claim comes through their British relations, so they have to ask permission.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-01-2013, 08:54 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,340
If Edward had married someone who was royal and then had children, his oldest son would be the King of England. If he had no sons, then his daughter. If he had no children, King George still would have become King

This I think everyone can agree on.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-01-2013, 09:03 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,654
I agree, subject to the qualification that George would have had to survive Edward, which he did not, but maybe only because he did in fact become king.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-01-2013, 09:40 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
If Edward had married someone who was royal and then had children, his oldest son would be the King of England. If he had no sons, then his daughter. If he had no children, King George still would have become King

This I think everyone can agree on.
I do agree, with one correction. Edward's son would have been King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not England. There is no separate English kingdom, and there has not been one since 1707 when England and Scotland were officially merged.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-01-2013, 11:12 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
...Say Queen Victoria married one of her FitzClarence cousins...
Well the 1st Duke of Fife was a Fitzclarence descendent and although he had no succession rights he was allowed to marry HRH Princess Louise, the Princess Royal and their descendents have succession rights through Princess Louise. Edward VII even styled their daughters as HH Princess instead of just as the daughters of a duke.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-01-2013, 11:22 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie are all descendents of the illegitimate off-spring of a King - coming from one of the many children of Charles II.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-02-2013, 02:21 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post

Well the 1st Duke of Fife was a Fitzclarence descendent and although he had no succession rights he was allowed to marry HRH Princess Louise, the Princess Royal and their descendents have succession rights through Princess Louise. Edward VII even styled their daughters as HH Princess instead of just as the daughters of a duke.
Thanks! I knew there was an example of individuals with succession rights despite illegitimate lineage through someone recent, but I couldn't remember the who and when, and didn't have the time to look it up earlier.

As Bertie has also pointed out, there's also the issue of the Wales boys and York girls all being descended from Charles II as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other examples as well; royal bastards who were acknowledged were often given noble titles if their fathers were king, and many families with noble titles married descendants of Sophie of Hanover, putting them somewhere in the line of succession.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-03-2013, 12:14 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
If Edward had married someone who was royal and then had children, his oldest son would be the King of England. If he had no sons, then his daughter. If he had no children, King George still would have become King

This I think everyone can agree on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I agree, subject to the qualification that George would have had to survive Edward, which he did not, but maybe only because he did in fact become king.
Good point, but either way Elizabeth would still have become the next monarch and consequently the current monarch. So it is just a matter of how long she would have been on the throne by 2013.

But that presupposes that Edward did not utterly disgrace the UK with his political stance, that is to say, pro Hitler which would have led to a division between the Monarchy and the Government which, while pro peace was decidedly anti-Nazi, possibly leading to the abolition of the Monarchy itself!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-03-2013, 03:22 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Let's remember that in the 1930s many aristocratic Brits and elsewhere were supporters of Hitler but they changed their minds in 1939 or early 1940 - once the war had begun.

Edward didn't appear to change his mind that early but was that because he had been forced to abdicate and then was cut off from his family or would he have delayed in becoming anti-Nazi as king (personally I believe it was his political views rather than his desire to marry Wallis that caused the abdication - the government seized on Wallis as an excuse the public would accept without them having to be given the real reasons).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, duchess of windsor, duke of windsor, edward viii, line of succession, styles and titles, wallis simpson


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best future European monarch The Watcher Royal Chit Chat 83 08-27-2013 06:30 PM
What is the difference between a Regent and a Monarch? Melania Royalty Past, Present, and Future 10 01-01-2012 03:26 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]